" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Or having the EPA do it by fiat...
Amnesty for illegals; great,reward them for breaking our laws. Of course,that will encourage MORE of them to illegally immigrate,just like the LAST time.
and don't forget the VAT he plans on enacting....gotta PAY for all the freebies.
. Referring to China (It was we understand a humorous reference; since so much stuff is made there these days and we buy it from Wal Mart and other North American companies). It is said that Wal Mart spends more, annually, buying stuff from China alone than the total annual budget of some smaller countries! That's BIG business eh?
But batteries and the materials to make come from and are used in many parts of the world. IIRC we had some batteries from Pakistan or India?
BTW: Remember the Union Carbide (A North American company!) plant that caused the deaths and poisoning of humans at Bhopal in India years ago! Apparently their ground water is still polluted!
Bought something t'other day; it had been made in Mexico and it contained batteries but not possible to tell where they had been made; possibly Japan?
Also bought some food item; trying to remember what it was ............ anyway the box said something about 'Packaged in the USA' or 'Product of the USA' but it was not possible to tell where the actual contents had been grown!
Also talking about China. Very surprised at the little, if any, reporting on North American TV/Radio about several hundred miners rescued from a flooded mine, some after 8 days, in China.
Watched news reports via the internet from BBC, Russian, French, China TV and Al Jazeera (All in English). This was at the same time as the frequently reported mining disaster in W.VA
In China; apparently mining operations broke into older workings and water flooded into the mine. The lack of safety standards in Chinese mines has been criticised in the past.
Notably, they had 1000 rescuers working above ground and in the mine to effect the rescues. And despite the length of time the loss of life was low.
Where? Did the Dems not say they would only appear at the Budget Summit if tax increases were also on the table? Did they not get THEIR taxcuts and then proceed to beat Bush I soundly about the face and head for agreeing with them? Was there never any programs cut.
However, I
Yep. Although, again remember all of the lies with the Congress. President proposes, Congress disposes. And that is independent of the party in control of either branch.
Good luck with that. Even the Founding Fathers wrestled with that.
Heck I would have settled for reversing. What happened instead was that the GOP came out of the wilderness into power, got a taste of how much fun it is to spend money and joined the club. Interesting stat. The five years before the GOP took over in '94, spending increased year-to-year at a very stable level. The 5 years after the GOP took over, that stable level went down a couple of percent per year. By the end of the next 5 years, the year-over-year increases had returned to what they were. All of this while the GOP was still in control of both houses of Congress.
That wasn't just "how much fun". They spent spent spent and then borrowed more with every intention of bankrupting the government and then running against it once they were out of power. Their spending was for wars (2 with no taxes to pay for them), corporate welfare, and huge taxcuts for the alreadly super wealthy.
We now have a greater gap between the poor and the wealthy than ever before, a "restrained" Supreme Court that decides that corporations can spend all they want on elections, and a deficit that almost prevents us from doing anything decent.
Significantly more complex as well.
But the uber-class made lots of money, and that's what really counts.
Sorry, you're not supposed to notice that gap or the fact that your purchasing power, even with your fat "make me feel good" income figures appear higher than in the past. You're supposed to be like the dolt who claims Obama is a commie and believe the rhetoric the neo-cons spew about you doing so much better when they are in power. Please try to stick with the program.
Perhaps, but Corporations didn't get the rights of a citizen until a small side SCOTUS decision in the early 1900's. That was a brilliant legal move by the proponents, and the beginning of the downfall of democracy. Combined with the latest SCOTUS decision, elections will now be owned by the Corporations (Unions, etc included) and democracy is now officially dead. Only when there is an outrageous result (like the GWB/neo-con excesses crashing the economy) will the public's outrage carry over into the people exerting their power and making a choice.
You do of course realize that this SCOTUS decision (1) kept in place the restrictions on the amount of money that Corp (or unions) could give directly to the candidate and (2) only addressed a restriction on advertising 90 days before the election and only when it made actual reference to a candidate (either for or against).
Yes, Bush's plan was a giveaway to illegals, setting up a revolving door that would let 8 million a year be here on a "revolving door" basis to staff the work places of his neo-con friends. Unfortunately, they would never be found once their legal stay ended, so the revolving door was really just an open door. It's a good thing that sensible voices deleted that travesty neo-con bill.
Unfortunately there are very few sensible voices in DC and between those that want a massive illegal work force and those that believe all immigration, legal or not, is a good thing... we've probably not seen the end of the open door policy.
Yes, and it's a hole big enough to drive a front end loader through... or more specifically, a front end loader full of money. That particular blockade to the flow of organizational money was a serious dam in the river that's washing away democracy.
Organizations should not be allowed to contribute, period. That includes Corporations, Unions, PACS, you name it. Limit contributions to individuals and limit the individual contributions. If that requires a Constitutional Amendment so save Democracy, so be it.
Likewise there should be a ban on ALL lobbying by anyone but individuals. If a CEO wants to lobby, he can do it. If he wants to get his 10,000 employees to send letters in favor of something that benefits his company, go for it. If a Union wants to lobby - no deal - but their members can certainly individually lobby their elected reps to do what benefits the union. Sure, the "haves" will always have more influence than the "have nots" (ability to take time to lobby, or write, or campaign for others to lobby with them) but at least we'd have a level field.
If we want to save Democracy, we need to make changes.
Yeah, stopping it for a whole 90 days made a big impression. Before that came about a couple of years ago, the airwaves and newspapers were absolutely filled with ads from Companies, etc. Yeah right.
Go for it. You will note that pretty much every campaign reform passed since the 70s has had parts of it thrown out by various Courts. Actually the PAC structure was a direct result of that in the first place.
I'd actually agree with that. But it is obvious that has to be done through a Constitutional amendment and that ain't gonna happen.
If you don't think it was a serious hole, explain why there was such a concerted effort create a case, then force it up through the courts to the SCOTUS level. .
Understood. Sad but true.
Not when those who benefit the most from the status quo hold the keys to the door, no. Even if the Dumbocrats did not join in trying to defeat it (and they would), the massive disinformation campaign the neo-Republicans would mount would make the health care opposition look like a pebble compared to Mt. Everest.
Because it was unconstitutional? Because someone got upset when their rights were violated?
Of course most of the Healthcare stuff is probably going to turn out to be true. Especially the part about bankrupting us. I know the CBO says it shouldn't. Unlike the CBO, I don't have to ignore 40 years of precedent and pretend Congress will actually not increase the money that goes to docs every year. (g).
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.